Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullseye (C.O.P.S.)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye (C.O.P.S.)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you do realise you argument falls under the wikipedia line of WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no information on the topic can be found in secondary sources there is nothing to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 08:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources found to establish notability. Article is filled with original research and plot which violates what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another of these COPS articles that are "sourced" (and I'm using the word in the sense that you'd nickname a fat guy 'slim' or a redhead 'bluey') by some dubious youtube videos, thus making them nothing but original research. I'll also point out that the show itself only ran for about a year, making it fairly low on the notability scale so extensive articles on every character is excessive and inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.